A few questions?

[rotorgoat]

Hi, I'm new to the forum and am looking at a 337E as a possible purchase and have a few questions;
1. The TCDS show 93 Gal as fuel capacity and do not mention any other origional configurations or options. The seller says it has a 128 Gal. What's the scoop? Also are these integral tanks or bladders?

2. What crosswind component are you experienced skymaster pilots comfortable with? I can read the book so no quotes please.

3. What type of time between overhauls can a conservative, engine babying operator expect for the front and rear engines.

I appreciate your input in advance.

[Ernie Martin]

I don't have an E but I had a D, now have a G, and examined the parts manual for the E to prepare this reply to point 1: If the aircraft has two filler caps in each wing and the fuel selector valve for each engine has a stop for auxiliary tank, then yes, it has 128 gallons (see image for tank placards).

2. I feel comfortable with 20 knots (most of the islands I fly to have a single runway, so I'm forced to do lots of crosswind landings). A friend with many more Skymaster hours than me is comfortable with 25.

3. 2000 hours for my normally aspirated. I go to 25/25 at about 500 ft and leave the throttle there until the descent, so at cruise MF may be as low as 19; I normally lower RPM to 23 or 24 when I get to cruise altitude.

Ernie

[Walter Atkinson]

Originally Posted by Ernie Martin

I go to 25/25 at about 500 ft and leave the throttle there until the descent, so at cruise MF may be as low as 19; I normally lower RPM to 23 or 24 when I get to cruise altitude.

Ernie:

After TESTING various methods in both an advanced engine test facility and on a very well-instrumented airplane (read pressure transducers, etc) you may be surprised to discover that the easiest one can be on the NA engine is to leave the throttle wide open and the prop full forward until reaching cruise altitude and then setting whatever cruise setting you choose.

1) The internal cylinder pressures at WOT/max RPM are lower than at 25/2500. CHTs will be better controlled.

2) Lean to the Target EGT as you climb.

That gets one to altitude quicker, saves fuel and is much easier on the engine. Based on the hard data, the notion that reduced throttle settings during a climb are "babying" an engine are misplaced.

[rotorgoat]

That's interesting. I don't have an operating manual for the IO-360 but typically Max Power is limited to 5 minutes on a good number of engines. I'm not sure what Max RPM is for this engine either but it seems that higher RPM usually plays a significant factor in engine life.

[Walter Atkinson]

Originally Posted by rotorgoat

That's interesting. I don't have an operating manual for the IO-360 but typically Max Power is limited to 5 minutes on a good number of engines. I'm not sure what Max RPM is for this engine either but it seems that higher RPM usually plays a significant factor in engine life.

Any engine that has a max power time limitation should be adhered to. If none, max rpm is OK.

[rotorgoat]

Thanks Ernie, I was curious about the x-wind because the only twin boom airplane that I've flown was the C-82 (origional "Flight of the Phoenix) and it would actually turn away from the x-wind (due to the large fuselage area) instead of weathervaning into the wind. We flew some nasty Wx and winds in the Alaska bush and only had brakes and rudder (no reverse) to force it back into the wind--about the same as the Skymaster I would suspect. I'd be using this plane in northern Colorado/southern Wyoming---lots of mountain wind --strong and gusty.
You didn't mention if the tanks have bladders-- I guess that was a problem with the early 210"s.
Also were these props subject to any expensive AD's? This plane has been sitting for awhile.

Thanks again!

[hharney]

Tanks are internal and made from aluminum. The mains (outboard) are two separate tanks coupled together and make up 90 gallons usable. If there are inboard auxiliary tanks, these are inside the wing inboard the booms. 18 gallons usable for each side. Again these are aluminum tank inside the wing. Panels on the top side of the wing provide serviceable access.

Skymaster handles crosswinds well. I have landed in some pretty gusty situations. While living in Southern Idaho for 40+ years a slight cross wind was 25 gusting to 35. That was just normal. I didn't worry until the controller said 30 gusting to 40. The desert mountains and plains as you described can be windy.

My rear engine had over 2400 hours on it before it was replaced. Treat them right and they will supply long service.

I don't recall any AD's on the props. I would have to look that up.

Be very cautious of ramp queens. The purchase price is enticing but that's when the honeymoon ends. You can spend some big dollars on bringing a sleeping Skymaster to life. I would have a good per-buy performed by a mechanic that understands Skymasters. This is a must.

[rotorgoat]

Thanks Herb, I'm an A&P and while time may not be of the essence usually money plays a larger factor. What kind of "money" issues could one expect aside from the engines?

[hharney]

Like any twin engine Cessna aircraft, the Skymaster is a complex airplane. I say this because most first time buyers are interested to move up to a bigger, more powerful airplane. They have owned a 172 or a 182 and tend to favor the high wing. What surprises them is the lower price that Skymaster are currently selling for. They look at the Skymaster and compare it to their single Cessna. They think for the money the Skymaster really offers a great safe airplane. Problem comes when they have to maintain those " twin engine systems".

Now for the buyer that has owned an Aerostar or a Navaho they understand the cost of ownership. This class of aircraft will cost more than the Skymaster but purchase price of the Aerostar or Navaho does a better job at pre- qualifying the buyer. A much more serious audience. When a guy can sell his 182 for more than a Skymaster costs it makes one consider an airplane that will cost substanually more to maintain and fly than he is use to or can imagine.

The normal aspirated Skymaster is much simpler and cost less to operate than the turbo or pressurized model. The systems that can be expensive to maintain, especially if it has not been used regularly, are:

Landing gear
Fuel - pumps, valves, caps, tanks
Flap cables
Electrical system
Cowl flap motors
Engine accessories - throttle bodies, exhaust, starters and adapters, hydraulics
Engine control cables - rear (very long)
Electrical - strong emphasis
Corrosion

Nothing that would surprise you if you have been around aircraft. But it just costs more to fix, maintain and buy parts for. (than the 172)

Read the STICKY threads right at the top of the list for the best "get to know Skymasters" of this site. I would never try to discourage anyone from buying a good used Skymaster but for the first time buyer it is always good to make sure they know what they are getting into.

[rotorgoat]

Thanks again Herb, That was excellent info--I'll review the Sticky posts again. Just from your post I gather that parts costs are a significant factor here and I assume that Cessna controls that venue?